5 ms·

No no, your claim was this: "so much that it's considered wrong on many points by economists of all political persuasions." Good economists expanding on or cri

No no, your claim was this: "so much that it's considered wrong on many points by economists of all political persuasions." Good economists expanding on or critiquing small parts of a huge work doesn't represent any sort of repudiation of it; it's the scientific process. And the people paid to object to it (Heritage et al.) will naturally do what they are paid to do; that too represents no sort of repudiation. Krugman on Piketty: "It’s a remarkable claim—and precisely because it’s so remarkable, it needs to be examined carefully and critically. Before I get into that, however, let me say right away that Piketty has written a truly superb book. It’s a work that melds grand historical sweep—when was the last time you heard an economist invoke Jane Austen and Balzac?—with painstaking data analysis. And even though Piketty mocks the economics profession for its “childish passion for mathematics,” underlying his discussion is a tour de force of economic modeling, an approach that integrates the analysis of economic growth with that of the distribution of income and wealth. This is a book that will change both the way we think about society and the way we do economics." For someone who hasn't read the book, you sure have a lot to say about it. > the majority of those born into the top quintile do not stay there [about 55% leave]. Another way to write that would be that 45% of those born into the top quintile never have a single year in their adult lives (age 18-110) when they don't have a household income of at least $100K. Not when they're a student in college; not when they're on their deathbed at age 98. That's astonishing. And the other 55%... do have a year, sometime in their adult lives, when they don't have a household income of at least $100K. Does that mean they were suddenly poor? Not hardly.

ChrisLomont 12y ago
So you're done claiming the only counter points are from is Fox News? That was quick. >Good economists expanding on or critiquing small parts of a huge work doesn't represent any sort of repudiation of it. Taleb proving conclusively that Piketty make significant math errors is not a small part. Multiple scholars showing Piketty has data errors, so much that he had to retract some claims, is not a small repudiation. The paper showing that one can reach the same results of Piketty without needing his take on why is pretty significant. There is plenty more, from technical papers dealing with r>g and showing it is absurd, to the pop ones I included above. You want a particularly scathing counter to Piketty? Here [1] is a poll about his r>g claim (central to his work) from likely the most respected forum for polling economists, which includes about 100 top economists from all stripes and all areas. Take a moment to read it, see who is polled (and note they are all over the spectrum). Only one economist strongly agrees with the question, and only 16% agree at all - the other 84% disagree. Read the comments from the economists. Again, you're far from correct. Want a good read? Here [2] is a econ paper from well repsected researchers Acemoglu (MIT) and Robinson (Harvard) from 2014, and here [3] are all papers citing it I could find in case you want to see what critiques exist. Among other flaws in Pikettys claims, they conclusively show that his second fundamental law leads to nonsense, which is contradicted by existing empirical evidence. A quote "In particular, as we noted in the text, Pikettys second fundamental law has untenable implications, particularly in the cases where the growth rate of the economy becomes low (and it is these cases on which Piketty bases his conclusions about the implications of low growth on the capital share of national income)." Of course, you are unaware of all this, and seem to think only Fox would claim there are problems with the work. >For someone who hasn't read the book, you sure have a lot to say about it. For someone that hasn't read any counter to the book, you sure are certain the book is correct. I don't have to read Newton's Principia to know relativity supplants it. I only have to read enough literature to know what is going on in the field. It's ludicrous to claim I need to read the original book in order to benefit from later knowledge or critiques of it. It's nearly equally ludicrous to try to discount solid research by others because I personally did not read the book. Instead of trying ad hominem or implying I am making up this evidence, go read some of it. >Another way to write that would be that 45% of those born into the top quintile never have a single year in their adult lives (age 18-110) when they don't have a household income of at least $100K Care to source that? Not a single year huh? That is certainly not what the paper claims - it only measures two snapshots in time. Did you just make that up, like your other "claims"? Is this your feeling, or can you provide the data like I have that shows you're wrong? I'd like to see your dataset tracking enough people over an entire lifetime to prove that many never leave that bracket. Here's [2] an actual data point towards showing your claim is wrong. It follows a sample of households over the 10 year span 1996-2005, and finds (among other things) that of the bottom quintile of households, the majority moved up over this period, and of the top 1%, the majority dropped out in this period. Fully 40% of those in the top 10% dropped out over this 10 year period, but unfortunately this does not show the quintile for which you claim 45% never see under 100K. And all this is over a 10 year span, not the 92 year span you claim is true. For someone that espouses the scientific process, you certainly ignore what experts write, ignore solid counter evidence, and make up unsupportable (and demonstrably false) claims. Since you seem willing to make up stuff, please provide links to evidence for your future claims. Debunking your claims will be much easier if you're forced to demonstrate your accuracy. [1] http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_5v7Rxbk8Z3k3F2t http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-re... [2] http://economics.mit.edu/files/10302 http://economics.mit.edu/files/10302 [3] http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=1771704582024827635&as_sdt=80000005&sciodt=0,23&hl=en http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=1771704582024827635&... [4] https://www.stlouisfed.org/Publications/Inside-The-Vault/Spring-2010/US-Income-Inequality-Its-Not-So-Bad https://www.stlouisfed.org/Publications/Inside-The-Vault/Spr...

ChrisLomont 12y ago

So you're done claiming the only counter points are from is Fox News? That was quick. >Good economists expanding on or critiquing small parts of a huge work doesn't represent any sort of repudiation of it. Taleb proving conclusively that Piketty make significant math errors is not a small part. Multiple scholars showing Piketty has data errors, so much that he had to retract some claims, is not a small repudiation. The paper showing that one can reach the same results of Piketty without needing his take on why is pretty significant. There is plenty more, from technical papers dealing with r>g and showing it is absurd, to the pop ones I included above. You want a particularly scathing counter to Piketty? Here [1] is a poll about his r>g claim (central to his work) from likely the most respected forum for polling economists, which includes about 100 top economists from all stripes and all areas. Take a moment to read it, see who is polled (and note they are all over the spectrum). Only one economist strongly agrees with the question, and only 16% agree at all - the other 84% disagree. Read the comments from the economists. Again, you're far from correct. Want a good read? Here [2] is a econ paper from well repsected researchers Acemoglu (MIT) and Robinson (Harvard) from 2014, and here [3] are all papers citing it I could find in case you want to see what critiques exist. Among other flaws in Pikettys claims, they conclusively show that his second fundamental law leads to nonsense, which is contradicted by existing empirical evidence. A quote "In particular, as we noted in the text, Pikettys second fundamental law has untenable implications, particularly in the cases where the growth rate of the economy becomes low (and it is these cases on which Piketty bases his conclusions about the implications of low growth on the capital share of national income)." Of course, you are unaware of all this, and seem to think only Fox would claim there are problems with the work. >For someone who hasn't read the book, you sure have a lot to say about it. For someone that hasn't read any counter to the book, you sure are certain the book is correct. I don't have to read Newton's Principia to know relativity supplants it. I only have to read enough literature to know what is going on in the field. It's ludicrous to claim I need to read the original book in order to benefit from later knowledge or critiques of it. It's nearly equally ludicrous to try to discount solid research by others because I personally did not read the book. Instead of trying ad hominem or implying I am making up this evidence, go read some of it. >Another way to write that would be that 45% of those born into the top quintile never have a single year in their adult lives (age 18-110) when they don't have a household income of at least $100K Care to source that? Not a single year huh? That is certainly not what the paper claims - it only measures two snapshots in time. Did you just make that up, like your other "claims"? Is this your feeling, or can you provide the data like I have that shows you're wrong? I'd like to see your dataset tracking enough people over an entire lifetime to prove that many never leave that bracket. Here's [2] an actual data point towards showing your claim is wrong. It follows a sample of households over the 10 year span 1996-2005, and finds (among other things) that of the bottom quintile of households, the majority moved up over this period, and of the top 1%, the majority dropped out in this period. Fully 40% of those in the top 10% dropped out over this 10 year period, but unfortunately this does not show the quintile for which you claim 45% never see under 100K. And all this is over a 10 year span, not the 92 year span you claim is true. For someone that espouses the scientific process, you certainly ignore what experts write, ignore solid counter evidence, and make up unsupportable (and demonstrably false) claims. Since you seem willing to make up stuff, please provide links to evidence for your future claims. Debunking your claims will be much easier if you're forced to demonstrate your accuracy. [1] http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_5v7Rxbk8Z3k3F2t http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-re... [2] http://economics.mit.edu/files/10302 http://economics.mit.edu/files/10302 [3] http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=1771704582024827635&as_sdt=80000005&sciodt=0,23&hl=en http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=1771704582024827635&... [4] https://www.stlouisfed.org/Publications/Inside-The-Vault/Spring-2010/US-Income-Inequality-Its-Not-So-Bad https://www.stlouisfed.org/Publications/Inside-The-Vault/Spr...